"I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir ... the Jungian thing, sir."
Private Joker, Full Metal Jacket

Thursday, October 25, 2007

We don't sit around knitting nooses

There was something of a dustup in the local blogosphere over a comment made in response to a comment to a post on his blog by an anonymous blogger known as Illusory Tenant. (The term refers to someone who leases a rent controlled apartment and then does not occupy it but, rather, sublets it to someone else at a profit.)IT claims to be employed in the law and, based on his (or her, I suppose)facility with the law, is either a lawyer or someone who has studied law. In any event, IT made thinly veiled reference hinting that Jessica McBride could be described by a very bad four letter word beginning with "c."

After a rather weak attempt to deny that the word means what it does (you can find a inoffensive secondary meaning for most slurs), IT apologized. Good enough, but let's remember that the next time someone on the right side of the scrimmage line exercises the same type of misjudgement and then has the good sense to repent.

Why do otherwise intelligent folks get pulled into this type of incivility? A clue comes from a comment posted on the McBride stalking site, Whallah. Someone said:

This fake umbrage is funny. Does anyone doubt that the right-wingers who are expressing such outrage don't routinely slip into gross language when they're letting slip their real feelings about gays or blacks or Jews?

Well, I don't have to speculate because I know the heart of the vast right wing conspiracy. When its dark minions get together to smoke cigars and drink scotch and plot whatever, sometimes I'm there. So the answer to the question is "No, actually, they don't." What we say in the light, we repeat in the dark. The virulent "closet" racism and homophobia that you are so certain must exist doesn't exist. Learn that.

The left, as it turns out, is rather a simple mind to understand. They do a lot of projection out of the failure to understand that there can be rational people who don't think or behave the way they do.

The left are giving you a vision of what the VRWC would be if they ran it. It's also a clear view of what the left really is.

First of all, let me be the first in line to condemn the incivility of my comment. Nobody can touch me in strenuousness on that account, I assure you. If I was so inclined, I'd be the groveling penitent in the confession box as we speak.

But, setting that aside for a moment, and I say this not by any means as a defense or even with the slightest intent of offering mitigating circumstances, but the word is not in universal usage as it was taken by those whom it has offended, at least according to the commentary of the offended that I have read.

However, I acknowledge that offense, I acknowledge it sincerely, and I say that with the utmost respect for those who were offended. I offer the following purely as a brief discussion of etymology and usage.

Before you so characterize my “denial,” let me assure you I did not seek to “find” a secondary meaning for the word. I'm well aware that the word is, for many people, primarily extremely coarse slang for the female genitalia – among the coarsest, no question.

But in Great Britain, for example, it's pretty much the rough equivalent of “jerk,” or “a**hole.” In fact, in even less polite society, it's almost as innocuous as “fellow,” or, as they say, “geezer.”

Indeed, it's more often applied to men than women. And that, in fact, has been my experience. I honestly did not intend any sexual or anatomical connotation whatsoever. None. I failed to resist the temptation to make a very cheap shot based on the presentation of a homonym in the comment above mine.

As I say, this is not a defense. There's no excuse for it, and I wasn't trying to make one by attempting, perhaps clumsily, to limn the distinction in usage and context.

Nevertheless, I understand that we are not in England and, as I said, given that fact, I now acknowledge the complete extent of my offense. And believe me, I'm mortified.

Having said that, I cannot accept the suggestion that a “clue” to my own uncivil comment might be gleaned from some anonymous one at another blog. Mine offense is stand-alone, and is my responsibility only. And I certainly don't subscribe to the observation in that particular comment.

By the same token, I sincerely hope this regrettable episode is not used to paint other members of “the left” out of the bucket that might rightly (no pun intended) be poured, in its entirety, on my head. In this instance, I alone am personally responsible.

And, finally, I hope it doesn't obscure the remarks of McBride's that brought about my intemperate comment in the first place. Because those deserve at least equal scrutiny.

One of the things that I believe, but that it is hard to say in our world with its history, is that people who lash out at others with racial or ethnic or sexually derogatory terms are often not so much racist or sexist as they are angry. They lash out in whatever way they think would be the most hurtful.

And, without saying anymore about your comment, that's why I focus on the anger which was expressed in the anonymous comment. Conservatives aren't monsters and neither are liberals. But we do have important things to debate (even colorfully), so let's do that.

Admiring the dedication you put into your website and in depth information you offer. It's good to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the same unwanted rehashed material.Wonderful read! I've bookmarked your site and I'm including your RSS feeds to my Google account.

About Me

I am President and General Counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty and an adjunct professor of law at Marquette University Law School. The views expressed here are my own and not those of WILL or Marquette. They are offered in my personal capacity.